Personally, I quietly made a medical power of attorney at my physician's office. I spelled out exactly what treatment I wanted and didn't want. I appointed someone close to me to act in my stead. When I got engaged to my now husband, I put him on on the form. Only those appointed know about it. They also have copies. It will keep the kooky JW family away from any medical decisions pertaining to me.
I told the elders that I would take blood and donate blood
by Daniel1555 75 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
DesirousOfChange
it was just a discussion regarding the life of your children in the remote chance of them requiring blood, when there are no other alternatives
It's something that parents SHOULD be discussing BEFORE an emergency.
Which "fractions" are acceptable?
I am not aware of any published list of what is OK and what is BANNED.
Does anyone else know of such?
I suspect only the Liaison Committee has such.
Doc
-
Vidiot
Daniel1555 - "Well I can tell you they don't like to talk about that subject, because the whole thing is unlogical from the core. I mean how can you truly say life is holy and then in the same sentence that you refuse blood products in a last resort situation. Moreover the whole fraction thing made it even more stupid."
Actually, the evolution of the blood prohibition in recent decades makes a lot of sense from the WTS's POV.
I think the GB is aware it's based on flawed theological reasoning, but obviously can't come right out and repudiate it, because if they did, the WTS would be inundated with wrongful death litigation from non-JWs who've lost JW familiy members who were dutifully obedient to the ban, not to mention potentially thousands of loyal JWs who'd also lost relatives to the ban becoming confused, "stumbled", and ultimately leaving the Org too quickly for the WTS to adjust (I have long held the opinion that the WT heirarchy is deliberately taking steps to reduce the size of its membership, but at a rate that they control, so as to ensure their own survival). In addition, they have a long-standing (if unwritten) policy of not wanting to look as though "Satan's World" has compelled them to make changes, because it would undermine their authority in the eyes of many loyalists.
Therefore, they've been trying to phaze it out under the radar, making more and more aspects of it a "conscience matter", dropping it from the list of DFing offenses in the Elders' Handbook, and mentioning it less and less in the literature in the hopes that (assuming the strategy works) within a decade or two, the R&F will have only a passing awareness of it, and (like the transplant ban) dismiss it as lies or "old light" when confronted about it. To them, it doesn't matter if it sounds goofy when broken down logically; it's about managing the transition.
I suspect, however, that the XJW community - by regularly drawing attention to the problems inherent in the blood ban and reasoning with regards to fractions - are making that strategy somewhat more difficult than they anticipated.
-
Daniel1555
Vidiot: I agree with you.
Desirous of change: All the "fractions" of erythrozytes, leukozytes, thrombozytes and plasma (red and white blood cells, platelets and plasma) are permitted or as they say a conscience matter.
The unlogical things: All of it is derived from blood donations (hundreds or thousands just for one treatment of 'clotting factors'). Some fractions are much bigger than the forbidden components. In mother milk are more white blood cells than in the same amount of blood. That means a baby is allowed to drink white blood cells but is forbidden to have them infused in a medical urgency.
-
RayPublisher
Yes they are definintely phasing out the blood ban and intend to do away with it very gradually. It's the only way they can indemnify themselves as mentioned.
Meanwhile, if one or two members each month die from the current blood policy oh well that is collateral damage and they will wake up in paradise so what's the big deal?
-
Vidiot
RayPublisher - "...if one or two members each month die from the current blood policy oh well that is collateral damage..."
"Collateral damage"; I like that. How about "acceptable losses" or "martyrs for the cause"?
Any way it's spun, it's still sacrificing human lives on the alter of a fundamentally flawed ideology, and that reveals something about the mindset of the WT heirarchy...
...that the R&F membership are - for all intents and purposes - viewed as material assets rather than human beings.
It's why there's so many DFing offenses listed in the elder's handbook; dissenters are no longer assets. They're liabilities that - ultimately - threaten WT ideology's perceived legitimacy.